Why Single Out Sugared Sodas

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

Coke or Pepsi? Diet or regular? These are questions that many of us hear on a regular basis when making choices about what we want to drink. But if a new law has its way this variety of drink choice could be no more, which is largely because soda and sugary beverages are contributing to the staggering increase in obesity rates in recent years in the United States. Obesity is defined as an abnormal accumulation of body fat that is usually 20% or more over an individual’s ideal body weight for their specific height, age and gender (Free Medical Dictionary 2007). Body weight and obesity risk are a result of genes, metabolism, behavior, environment, culture and socioeconomic status, wherein behavior and environment play two of the largest roles (University of Drexel 2015). People make decisions based on their environment or community which influence their health decisions and due to this it is essential to create environments that make is easier for people to engage in physical activity and eat a healthy diet (University of Drexel 2015). This is a problem that is particularly persistent in low-income populations causing them to suffer higher rates of obesity and the adverse health consequences that follow as a result of these poor diets. This is due in large part to their poor economic state but also their environment because they are surrounded by people that are in similar situations and dealing

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."

America is known for its advanced society and technology, but is also known to be one of the most obese populations. Found in “Down to Earth”, America is one of the most progressive countries to exist; therefore it should be the healthiest (“Obesity in America”). If America is so highly advanced, more advancement needs to be put towards obesity rates. As time goes on, adults and children are having to consequently expand their waistbands because of unhealthy habits. In an article previously discussed, Brown-well states that Americans are at an all-time low in exercising (Murray). By having less motivation to exercise, family health is at stake. Future generations need to be more pressured to keep physically fit for their health. With less motivation for a healthier lifestyle, communities across America will remain obese. According to CBS news, Americans prefer to consume Twinkies over Tofu (“The Blame Game”). With Americans not giving healthier options opportunity, less interest will be put into healthy options. Individuals are focusing on the pleasure of taste than their own well being. Internationally speaking, Americans have one of the strongest societies, but the weakest mindset for healthy living. With stubborn attitudes and continual unhealthy choices, obesity will not only stay but

Question 2 – This infographic relates to Nadia Arumugam’s claim that, if not anything else, this ban may teach us about the importance of “portion control”. In her article she quotes Thomas Hardy and according to him the reduction of the consumption of sugary drinks from 20 to 16 ounces “every other week” will help New Yorkers avoid gaining about 2.3 million pounds a year. One of the problems is that people don’t realize the actual amount of unhealthy products they consume in a longer period of time.

Other people think that it is the government’s problem to fix obesity. Although the government’s efforts have been provided, they have been lackluster and ineffective through society. The government has implemented such organizations such as the ABA to regulate beverages in schools to make for a better lunch. They try to regulate beverages in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and even times of day they can and can’t be sold (Source A). This is ineffective because this just causes people to bring in their own unhealthy drinks, and more likely more of them then needed because they can’t buy them in school.

“If and when the public chooses to use government power to offset the factors that promote obesity, we can do so. A day may come when we decide to limit advertising of unhealthy food, strengthen lifestyle teaching in schools, and create stronger financial incentives to adhere to lifestyle recommendations. The more eager we the people are to fight the obesogenic environment, the more responsive and effective our governments will become” (Medscape General Medicine, vol. 9, no. 4, 2007).

Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and

Obesity rates have been rising around the world, and many believe that removing the foodservice causes will eliminate it. As stated on his website page Combatting Obesity, Mayor Bloomberg initiated the legislation because “more than half of New York City adults (58%) are overweight or obese.” This percentage is fairly uniform across the U.S., and people want to do something about it. They have started by advocating for a ban of the largest source of sugar in our diet.

Over the past few years, overweight and obesity have been the most troublesome problem in the united states and more than one-third of U.S. adults (around 35.7%) are obese according to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which could lead to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some type of cancer. There are many things that could cause obesity but one of the main cause is sugary drinks. Sugary drinks contain chemical substance that could make addiction to the consumer. Sugar should be regulated in the same way as alcohol and tobacco because its increasing use in processed foods and sugary drinks poses a significant danger to public health, causing

In 2012, a potential ban on sugary drinks was introduced in order to lower New York City’s obesity rate. Most people will ignore this ban, as well as other ideas that will claim to improve their health, though health should be one of America’s number one priority.

Adults on average need to consume about 2000 calories a day to maintain good health; however, many people of all ages are ingesting far more calories than they need. The most threatening aspect of America’s excessive calorie intake is the effect it is having on children. According to source B a third of children aged two to fifteen are already overweight. This is dangerous because obesity leads to more health conditions and all this sugary intake is quickly weakening America. One can of soda has between thirty-three and thirty-five grams of sugar per serving which is more than a child's recommended total daily intake (Source A). Taking soda out of American’s diets or at least dramatically reducing it can help begin to reduce the obesity problem in America. In source C, Thomas Isaac says, “ the fight against fat has just begun” which applies to this proposed tax on soda. Soda contributes large amounts to unhealthy habits and now is the time to act.

Just last year, Berkeley’s and San Francisco’s ballots included measure that would tax sugary drinks one or two cents per ounce because of their high sugar content. Berkley, less than thirty minutes away from San Francisco, became the first city in the United states to adopt the tax while San Francisco became the thirty-first city to oppose it (Knight). As the tax and its ideas gain popularity, more cities are including the measure for the tax in their elections. The issue is that America’s obesity rates have skyrocketed over the past twenty years and have cost our country about $147 billion dollars in health expenses a year (Reinberg). One of the proposed ways to fix this problem is a sugar tax. It is a tax targeted at hydro processed overbought snacks with a high sugar content that have been proven to cause health risks. This would be similar to alcohol and tobacco. We can still buy these products but warning labels are placed on them and a tax is levied to offset the costs of what could happen to a person 's health after over consumption of these items. Proponents of this tax argue that sugar is one of the main causes of obesity to surge and a tax will be a useful deterrent when buying overly sugared items. Opponents of the tax argue that taxation is an ineffective way to get consumers to stop buying sugary items and it will most directly impact poorer families. Also, the government should not have the control to tell us what we can and

The battle on junk food has become an ongoing fight not only with ourselves, but within the country. The battle of obesity, which is the condition of being grossly overweight, is an epidemic spreading across the country. It’s effecting more than 35% of the United States. New York’s Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, has been making large attempts to improve the health and eating in his state. He has already made tremendous steps. He has outlawed smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. He has banned trans-fat in restaurants, and chain restaurants are required to post calorie counts. His attempt to regulate healthy eating has thus been a success so far. His newest attempt to regulate has, in my opinion, gone too far. He has attempted to regulate the size of sugary beverages allowed to be sold by delis, fast food restaurants, and street stands. While it may help some American’s fight their battle with obesity, we should not regulate the intake of junk food on them, because they will always find a way around the regulations.